Politics Re: Clinton and Obama (and The Gays)
posted by on March 15 at 13:20 PM
Dan’s feeling miffed at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for failing to come out swinging in favor of the morality of gayness. So, apparently, is the Human Rights Campaign. To recap:
Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced this week that he believes homosexuality is “immoral,” after which reporters began asking the presidential candidates what they thought of Pace’s statement. And because Democratic candidates are always in more of a political bind on gay issues, most of the media attention has focused on what the Democratic big three — Clinton, Obama, and Edwards — said in response. (Or, in the case of Clinton and Obama, what they didn’t say.)
Clinton, asked by ABC News whether homosexuality is immoral, responded:
Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude. I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.
Obama gave three non-answers to the question, posed by Newsday:
Answer 1: “I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That’s probably a good tradition to follow.”Answer 2: “I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they’re doing all the things that should be done.”
Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.
Edwards, taking a notably different tack, was more straightforward with Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: Let’s talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don’t change the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?
EDWARDS: I don’t — don’t share that view.
Afterward, both Clinton and Obama used spokespeople to suggest that they disagree with Pace. But the Human Rights Campaign reportedly isn’t satisfied and wants them to do more.
If all this feels like a replay of the 2004 presidential election, in which the issue of gay rights vexed Kerry and helped Bush win, it’s because it largely is. And who benefits politically when Democrats are forced to either side with the gays or the gay-haters? The answer is pretty clear: Republicans.
Of course, in a perfect world, this wouldn’t be an issue. Of course Democrats (and Republicans) should be able to say publicly what most of them probably already believe in private—based on the gays they employ, the gays they take money from, and, in more than a few cases, the gays they secretly sleep with—which is that being gay is hardly immoral.
Of course it’s ugly and unpleasant to watch people pander to prejudice.
But this is politics.
And the lesson of the last presidential election is that the gay issue creates a Hobson’s choice for Democrats. There is no good answer, no politically-smart way for them to be absolutist about supporting gays and full gay equality without creating a media frenzy that would distract from other issues and alienate a good part of the electorate. Which is why I find my self agreeing with Kerri Harrop (for a change).
By appearing uncomfortable in answering the question about gays and morality, and eventually approaching a muffled correct answer (through their spokespeople), Clinton and Obama are telegraphing to the average American that they are more like him or her than not.
Poll after poll shows that while support for gays and gay rights is increasing in this country, it’s far from a settled issue.
So, while appearing to be unsettled by questions about gays and gay rights might make certain Democrats seem craven and spineless to certain parts of the Democratic base, it no doubt plays well with the average American — if he or she is even following this episode.
And Edwards is not above trying to thread the needle by showing both comfort and discomfort with gay issues at the same time. His answer on gay marriage? “I’m just not there yet.” Translation: I’m with you, America. I’m uncomfortable about this.
It may be unpleasant for the liberal base to watch Democrats playing to the average American in order to win. But show me the Democrat who unequivocally supports full civil equality for gays and lesbians and I will show you… Dennis Kucinich.
Hillary herself finally corrected the record:
"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."
--Hillary, appearing on Bloomberg News
source http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/hrc_homosexuali.html
So why is it that when Republicans play to their deranged, sociopathic right-wing base, they win elections?
I think those upset at this should vote for the Reds in the Repug party.
At least then you can be constantly infuriated as they remove your rights - what few exist - one by one.
In other words - take a chill pill.
Eli, I suppose you *do* realize that you're asking gays to sit quietly at the back of the bus like good little something-or-others?
How in the hell are we supposed to *get* our equality without asking the one party which hates us *less* to take some initiative and leadership?
I really think your your post shows that you don't understand the fundamental nature of inequality--or just don't give a crap about it as it relates to gays.
To answer your question, Original Andrew, it's because there's a huge "red" pool of people who only vote when their churches order them to or they are scared out of their wits, and hence vote erratically and against their own interests (see the book "Whats The Matter with Kansas). 2004 was a perfect storm of both events-- the post-9/11 trauma mixed with a mobilized religious-leadership base calling out the troops. Oh that, and all those Diebold machines in Ohio...
i agree with adam/#4.
Can I get on a liberal soap box for a moment? *thank you*
Maybe just maybe, we should have politicians who are willing to educate voters as to the reason for their political beliefs. Would it be great to hear a candidate say " I think it is wrong to call homosexuality immoral and here are the reasons......". Now I know, our nation is backward and uneducated compared to many other countries in the world. And yeah, we look really really stupid holding up the the "USA is Number 1" foam finger in the air. But still, can we have candidates who take stands and are willing to "make an arguement with knowledge and facts that support their position"?
I know, it is asking too much of them and too much of the electorate to spend time understanding the people who are wanting to lead the nation. So, I am probably not going to be writing any more checks to the Democrats at this point: I guess I will just try to make sure I vote for them: while trying not to puke in the polling booth.
Last I heard Ralph Nader was still deciding if he was going to run.
Obama may have to do more damage control concerning the middle east.
@4: I'm gay. So I think I get how hard it is to watch even liberal politicians cave on gay rights. But after 2004, I'm feeling a lot more pragmatic on gay issues. First things first.
god. two-year election cycles are toxic. we're all becoming consumed with how loudly and directly the the major democratic candidates affirm their beliefs that homosexuality is not immoral and that gays should be able to serve openly in the military, while forgetting that all of the major republican candidates still believe that "don't ask, don't tell" is either working fine or is too liberal.
@10: You're gay? Then (to paint it broadly) you're designated 2nd class in 30-odd states, can't marry, can't serve, can't adopt, and have no legal recourse against bigots in housing or employment. Maybe none of that affects your life. It affects mine every minute of every hour. First things first, indeed.
@4, @6 - if you want rights, move to a first-world nation like somewhere in the EU or Canada, not a third-world nation like the US.
Seriously.
And then move back in 40 years when the US clues in.
Meanwhile, you can at least get married there (except France) and then live in the US under NAFTA if you chose Canada (since we are legally obligated to recognize legal marriages under NAFTA).
But stop whining about reality.
eli, you really nail it here:
There is no good answer, no politically-smart way for them to be absolutist about supporting gays and full gay equality without creating a media frenzy that would distract from other issues and alienate a good part of the electorate.
and, based on your writing in the paper, we actually agree on a lot more than you would imagine. it just never makes the slog.
and in case you can't tell, I'm being just a tad sarcastic.
You want a perfect world, either move where you have a better shot at it, or deal with the fact that you live in one of the more puritanical third-world nations.
"Is it immoral to deny the divity of Christ?"
Imagine any of the presidental candidates, Republican or Democratic, answering this question. From a content point of view, it is about the same as asing "is it immoral to be gay?"
The word "immoral" is so vague and personal in meaning. Our country was founded, in part, by recognizing that one person's immorality is anothers virtue.
The best answer I can come up with is:
"No, but it is unethical to deny gay people's rights OR the right to believe in Christ, regardless of what some might believe."
Ethical is such as stronger word, more secular and American than immoral. The mushiness of Hillary's and Obama's responses is disheartening. Still, I believe both could definitively state denying rights to a group based on perceived "morality" is unethical.
@4,
In response to your question, you get equality with cultural change, court decisions, and political pressure. I'm listing these things in order of importance and likelihood of success. Civil rights didn't happen overnight for African Americans either. In fact, most of the real tangible victories were the result of cultural change, not politics.
gay rights are important and I would like marriage rights someday, but man, you must have some problems with perspective if Hillary and Barrack's responses are enough for you to drop support for them.
Thousands are dying because of American foreign policy, we are holding people in prisons with no way for them to challenge their detention, the gap between the rich and poor is increasing, Americans are being spied on by their own government, we are doing worse than nothing to curb a global environmental catastrophe.
We need an electable Democrat to ensure that we don't get a republican that is even half as bad as Bush. The bonus is that a democrat that only kind of supports gay rights will be better for gays than the best republican.
Compared to the death of thousands of people and the loss of basic civil liberties, my right to marriage is nearly insignificant. Sadly, I am fairly confident that I will get my right to marry long before much larger injustices are ended.
@15: Sarcastic isn't the word I'd use for you. I know full well that "perfect" can be the enemy of "good." Incremental progress is still progress. But even *it* doesn't happen without pressure. Right now, cultural change is ahead of the politicians & the courts. In DADT, for example, polls show the rank and file military is ready. Polls show the public is ready. Only the top brass have problems with it, since they're evengelicals in league with those trying to stop the normalization of homosexuality.
I've been accepting crumbs for 30 years, and don't plan to die accepting crumbs.
Gay here too. Eli is right. What the activists never seem to understand is they don't decide who wins elections. The voters do. If you are not with the voters, you lose the election. Only if you win the election do you even get to put your ideas into law, to inch the society towards a better shake for everyone.
I never imagined in a million years gay marriage would occur in the US in my lifetime. I can wait. Get healthcare fixed and wars ended, these things are far more important than my being able to get married. As in #18, yes.
@18, 20 - good points.
And you can always get married while you spend a year abroad.
Political pragmatism always trumps unrealistic idealism. Use the idealism as your motivator, and then act based on what you can accomplish, and keep progressing forward.
The marriage equality movement is exciting and important, but frankly can we please get a federal civil rights bill recognizing the basic protections from discrimination first? Did the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's/60s push for miscegenation rights before job protections? No. They won a battle at a time.
The only reason we no longer have sodomy laws is a single supreme court decision, one that could be overturned by future Right-stacked court. We need laws.
Do we hold Hillary's and Obama's feet to the fire on queer issues? Damn right. When they misstep do we call them on it? Sure. Do we abandon them because they don't get straight-A's from the Human Rights Campaign? Are you kidding?
What's the perfect answer?
Q: Is Homosexuality immoral?
A: Of course not. Is being left-handed immoral? Most people are born a righty but some primarily use there left hand. Shouldn’t laws that protect the right-handed majority apply to lefties as well? Just as we’ve moved passed traditions of bias toward left-handedness, America should embrace homosexuality as a normal human quality. Morality is irrelevant.
Too far from the mainstream?
Yes, Gabe, that left-handed argument, while beautifully simple, has been out there for 30 years. Sadly, it never caught on in the "mainstream." Apparently the complexity of human sexuality and expression just isn't on par with which hand one writes or jacks-off with...
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).